Hi, I am a fellow global nomad, or TCK, whatever you like to call it. I agree with your post in its essence, and I hope you will do me the honor of reading my response.

Your post is very interesting and shows very careful thought. There is only one count on which I disagree. Most religious texts do not actually claim infallibility; it is fundamentalists that claim this. In the case of Christianity, the fundamentalist movement that came up with the idea of claiming infallibility for the Bible began in about 1912 in San Francisco. Most Christian denominations in the United States now accept this as true, but there are some denominations that have officially maintained the older belief that while parts of the Bible may be divinely inspired, it is certainly untrue that God dictated it verbatim.

If you accept Harris’ argument that textual infallibility comes first, followed by fundamentalism, then you are stuck in exactly the logical bind you describe. But if you begin your logical progression with the assumption that, as you say, “[no ideas] can be worth respect unless they embrace peaceful, tolerant coexistence” and dismiss textual infallibility as the brainchild of fundamentalists, then you are free to measure the merits of religious texts against your own inherent moral compass. Where the laws of Deuteronomy once told you that you should die for taking the Lord’s name in vain, you now read them and freely conclude that they are unjust and, in fact, inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus (how could an inconsistent text be infallible?).

I am not trying to convince you of anything, and I am especially not interested in converting you to any way of thinking. In fact, I am very much of your opinion on the tragic propensitites of religion in general. I would just like to point out that in my opinion, when religious texts are not afforded more respect than they deserve, it is possible to distill from them wisdom and learning that declare what we know in hearts to be true. You and I, and secular humanism in general, value such things as justice, equality, respect, and tolerance. These things are manifestations of love–you cannot pursue them without a selfless consideration for others–and love, in my mind, is God (see the biblical text 1 John 4:7,8).

I have a hearty respect for the opinions you have expressed, and I would love to hear back from you. I will look here for your reply.
7:28 PM
Global Girl said…

Most religious texts do not actually claim infallibility; it is fundamentalists that claim this. In the case of Christianity, the fundamentalist movement that came up with the idea of claiming infallibility for the Bible began in about 1912 in San Francisco.

Well, that’s very interesting to hear. That would certainly explain why I’ve never heard arguments based on the bible in Europe like you can in the US. Although that makes me wonder why on Earth someone would come up with the idea that any book, theory or thought of any sort is infallible. Infallibility isn’t exactly the hallmark of any human activity, and I have yet to hear them claim the bible was physically written and produced by god herself with no human involvement.

If you accept Harris’ argument that textual infallibility comes first, followed by fundamentalism, then you are stuck in exactly the logical bind you describe. But if you begin your logical progression with the assumption that, as you say, “[no ideas] can be worth respect unless they embrace peaceful, tolerant coexistence” and dismiss textual infallibility as the brainchild of fundamentalists, then you are free to measure the merits of religious texts against your own inherent moral compass.

You’re right. It’s still a new idea for me, despite living in the US for quite a while, that fundamentalism might be considered moral, sort of like I cannot imagine a society where nazism is considered moral. It is the stuff of twisted, black movies that make you need a shot of something strong. I am used to the second stance you offer.

I think when you live somewhere where there are a lot of religious fundamentalists of any kind, you become allergic to them and after a point, you break out in hives after only a few words of a certain kind. Even though I have seen and therefore can imagine another type of relationship to religion than what is exhibited here in the US, the fact remains that a lot of powerful people are described by Harris’s argument. I wish I had some better solution, but how can you point out the moral virtues of not taking the bible literally to one of these people? Their ideas about moral behavior are so off the charts, I think Harris’s argument applies to them.

Maybe what I am saying is that some people shouldn’t be allowed to be religious, but others should. But then we reach some territory that is difficult to navigate. Maybe I dropped the “normal” religious people off my radar, because they’re not a problem. We can meet on secular ground across religions to discuss school policy and how to pay for better roads. It’s the people that you can’t form a connection to that are dangerous.

Perhaps the issue is better framed in a more general perspective of human rights. Many religious ideas infringe upon them. That illuminates the moral problems with some religious ideas better, I think, than discussing the freedom of religion alone. Most of what I object to in both christianity and islam is the violation implied of women’s human rights, because as a woman, fundamentalists from those religions are likely to actively try to remove them, like in the case of abortion in the States. There are other issues as well, of course, it’s just that it’s very scary to see these people try to hide immoral ideas behind a veil of supposed morality. Being very European in my political sensibilities, I feel that universal human rights are the ultimate in moral authority, but since that view isn’t shared by many Americans I can’t really lean on that in a debate or discussion. You know how it is, that it is social reality somewhere else doesn’t bother people at all.
2:04 PM

b. foster said…

“It’s the people that you can’t form a connection to that are dangerous”

I wish I could say, in my experience, that is true, but it’s not. These are normal people and that’s what’s sor frightening about it. They are your nurses and your teachers and your theater teachers. They span every walk, and just because their beliefs are rigid and dogmatic does not mean they will strike you as such.
Chances are you’ve met or known many like this but just never had a glimpse of the intensity of their beliefs.
To them, their beliefs aren’t extreme, so you’ll rarely hear anyone admit as such. The biggest thing, I think, that silences them is this odd notion that christians are highly persected in this country. That is a common thread in the fundamentalist/evangelic mindset.

Anyway, you’ve probably nvever noticed them. In each american city, churches are filled with these feverish believers.
11:39 PM